Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> Commented in another post....  if it really prohibited parallel
>> distribution, I would think it's non-free -- but I think it does *not*
>> prohibit parallel distribution.  So I think it *is* free.
> Yeah, I'd like to believe that. Now, here's the funny part: if the board
> and the international affiliates of CC vigorously opposed the idea of
> parallel distribution

I'm not sure they did.  If they really did, then I guess we can't assume
that it allows parallel distribution.  But I really don't think they did.

> and had a clause explicitly permitting it removed 
> from the license,

They may have simply opposed the complexity and apparent "support" given to 
DRM by an explicit clause.  Everything I've read indicates that that's the 
case, but doesn't indicate that they actually per se opposed parallel 
distribution.  Unfortunately we have a lack of information on their 

> can we reasonably assume that the license as it stands 
> still allows parallel distribution?

Well, I think given the lack of clarity of their intentions we can assume it 
means what it says in "plain English".  Getting some clarity on their 
intentions would be *way* better, though.

Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...

with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to